here's a better idea. pillsbury grands! flaky layers biscuits in just 15 minutes the light delicate layers add a layer of warmth to your next dinner. pillsbury grands biscuits let the making begin. [ malcrrkkhshziiiizzlllee. to this symphony of flavor: beautiful. shhhhshshshshhshshhhhhsshhhshs. gorgeous! here comes the crescendo. kkerrrrbbuuuuuucraaackkk. just...incredible. pillsbury toaster strudel. if beethoven made breakfast.

with a free breakfast made just the way you like it. with a breakfast like this, you could pretty much handle anything. anything? anything. [ screams ] a rambunctious toddler? of course. uncle ralph? sure. a roman gladiator? you bet. the thing under my bed? why not? ♪ yes. [ female announcer ] get more with embassy suites. book early and save up to 20%. >> chris: i'm chris wallace. the debate over guns gets even

more intense. ♪ >> too many children are dying. too many children. we must do something. >> chris: a dramatic hearing on capitol hill underscores the deep divisions over how to prevent mass shootings. we'll ask two of the leading advocates to make their cases: mark sekelly, husband of former congresswoman, gabrielle giffords, and wayne lapierre, head of the national rifle association, kelly and laperriere, only on fox news sunday and senate republicans go after one of their former colleagues who wants to be defense secretary. >> we write, that is a direct question, i expect a direct answer, yes or no. >> chris: we'll ask the panel if chuck hagel's nomination is in

trouble and our power player of the week, a cheerleader for poetry, all right now on fox news sunday. >> chris: and, hello, again, from fox news in washington. president obama travels to minneapolis tomorrow to con his push for new gun control. and saturday the white house released this picture of the president skeet shooting at camp david which he says he does all the time. meanwhile, the national rifle association is fighting any new limits on guns. the first big legislative battle this year and today we will cover it in-depth. we'll talk with wayne lapierre, head of the nra in a moment. but, first, mark kelly, retired astronaut, navy captain and husband of former congresswoman gabrielle giffords who was shot two years ago. he and his wife launched a new group, "americans for responsible solutions." captain, let's start with your wife's dramatic testimony before a senate committee this week.

>> you must act. be bold. be courageous, americans are counting on you. >> chris: how is gabby doing? >> she's doing great, chris. you know, she enjoyed being there. in front of the senate. it was a little bit of having her former job back, in a sense. being on capitol hill. >> chris: let's get to this debate. because your wife's shooting raises some of the questions at the core of the gun control controversy. jared loughner had been suspended from college because of concerns that he posed a danger to others and yet he was able to go to a store in tucson, pass the background check and buy the gun he used to shoot your wife. so, the question is, what good does it do to make more people go through these background

checks when jared loughner with his problems was able to pass a background check? >> that is a good question, chris. he was clearly mentally ill. the school knew it, his parents knew it and he was expelled from community college because of his mental illness. if his condition was entered into the system, into the criminal background check system, and he went to do that background check, i would assume that he would have been rejected. so, in the case of jared loughner, if arizona would have entered 121,000 records that they had not entered into the system, if his record was one of those, and the he probably would have been rejected, like, since 1999, 1 million criminals and mentally ill have been rejected when trying to buy a weapon. the other point we need to make is, there is a gun show

loophole. so in the case of the rejection at the gun store, he could have easily gone to a gun show or private seller and get a gun, so this is a problem but we can solve it. >> chris: let me ask you about another part of the issue, of the debate. he shot your wife and all the others at that shopping center that morning, with a gun with a magazine that held 33 rounds. if there were a limit on the number of rounds, the president wants it to be ten rounds, what difference would it have made? >> i think it would have made a big difference, as he tried to reload one 33-round magazine for another 33-round magazine he dropped the magazine and it gave him for a woman to grab it and time for a couple of people to restrain him. if, let's say, for a second, that that was a ten-round magazine and the same thing

happened. you would have had a lot less people shot and a lot less people murdered. even nine-year-old christina taylor green, born on 9/11 and didn't live to see her tenth birthday likely would be alive today, because she was shot with a bullet after round number 13. >> chris: as you know, captain, ray laperriere will be on in the next segment and i want to deal with the arguments he makes. he said he had an assault weapons ban for ten years and it didn't work. >> well, i don't know if it worked or not. i haven't looked at all of the statistics. common sense tells me that if it is much more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get assault weapons and high capacity magazines and guns in general we'll save lives. i served in the military for 25 years. i mean, i know the value of having an assault weapon, a gun that can kill many people, many

quickly. i personally don't believe that we should have, you know, the average person on the street, including criminals, mentally ill and terrorists should have easy access to those weapons. in cases of mass shootings when an assault weapon has been used, we know typically twice as many people are shot and that means more people die and are severely injured. >> chris: all right, the nra says there are already 9,000 federal gun laws on the books. the problem is the government doesn't enforce them. >> yes, i agree with wayne lapierre on that point. there are gun laws on the books that are not enforced, specifically with regards to background checks. there were 1.7 million people that failed the criminal background check since 1999. and, not enough of them are prosecuted. they should be prosecuted and there should be stiff penalties but at the same time, we can't give those people a second option as to where to go get a

gun. and, right now, that is the gun show or the private seller. if we were to close those loopholes, it would be much more difficult for criminals and the mentally ill to get a gun. you know, gabby and i know it will be a hard problem to solve. i mean, she was somebody in congress who worked with republicans and worked across the aisle and that is what we need to do here today. you know, these are difficult problems. but, in the united states of america, we solve difficult problems. i mean, we sent men to the moon and built the international space station and cured diseases and we can fix this. >> chris: the basic question, the basic argument, the nra makes, is they say, and the supreme court upheld, that there is a constitutional right to bear arms and they say government doesn't have the right to say what kind of gun, how big a magazine, according to the nra, that is tyranny. >> well, i don't agree. you know, i do agree that every

american has the right to own a firearm, to protect himself, to protect his family, to protect his property. gabby and i are both gun owners and i don't think will find a person stronger a supporter of the second amendment than me and i defended it my life over iraq and kuwait but this isn't about the second amendment anymore. it is about public safety. we had 20 first graders die in their classrooms because we don't have sufficient gun violence legislation in the country. in 1934, we banned automatic weapons, i argue the semi-automatic assault weapon with a high capacity magazine is too dangerous to be on the street where criminals and terrorists and the mentally ill can get them. >> chris: let's talk political reality. as we mentioned you and your wife are starting a political group and the president is making a push and mayor bloomberg and other mayors are

making a push. i don't have to tell you the nra has a lot of clout on capitol hill and the last election cycle, they contributed $20 million to campaigns last year and 50% of the members of the new congress have an a-rating from the nra, realistically what do you think you can actually get through congress, this year? >> well, certainly, sitting in front of the senate judiciary committee, you know, i saw on both sides of the aisle that members of the senate, of that committee, really feel that we need to do something. now, sometimes, you know, it wasn't clear that everybody agrees on exactly what needs to be done. but i certainly saw that there is certainly a feeling, i believe, that a criminal background check is a necessity to keep criminals, the mentally ill and terrorists from getting weapons. and i think that is very possible to get that done.

i mean, gabby and i are going to work as hard as we can to do whatever we can to get common-sense solutions. i think the first thing, i mean, along with some, you know, help for the mentally ill and addressing this mental illness problem, is a universal criminal background check. >> chris: well, i want to ask you, because you did not mention the assault weapons ban and vice president joe biden said something quite interesting this week, i want to put it on the screen: "i'm much less concerned, quite frankly, about what you call an assault weapon than i am about magazines and the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine." has your side already given up on the idea -- not whether you think it is right or wrong -- but whether it is politically practical, realistic, have you given up the idea of banning assault weapons this year? >> first of all, gabby and i don't have a side. our organization is -- supports gun owners, responsible gun owners like ourselves and people that are strong supporters of the second amendment. i mean, i think that is really a

priority here. but another priority is to protect americans. and, there are common-sense things we can do to make this country a lot safer. a universal criminal background check. identifying the mentally ill and getting those records into the system, the high capacity magazine issue needs to be addressed. it saves lives. and, assault weapons. i mean, i -- like i said, chris, i mean, i spent 25 years in the military and know the value of having an assault weapon. and it is to kill a lot of people, very quickly. and i think they are way too readily available and i think in time we'll be able to address those issues. >> chris: and, finally, we have less than a minute left, as you know, wayne laperriere will be on right after the break, in the next segment. man-to-man, what do you want to say to him? >> well, certainly, he's going to say that background checks don't work. but, that is not true. i mean, he'll tell you that in a couple minutes. since 1999, 1.7 million people

were prevented from getting a firearm because they had a criminal record or a history of mental illness, we have stopped those people from getting a gun and now we have to make sure they don't have a second option to get the gun and that is getting the gun from a private seller or the gun show loophole without having a background check. we need to close that loophole so i hope that he can think about what would his members want? you know, 74% of nra members think it is a very reasonable thing to do, to have a background check before buying a gun. so what i would tell wayne lapierre, is i hope he'd listen to his membership, members of the nra tend to be very reasonable on this issue. >> chris: captain kelly, thank you, thank you for joining us and we wish you and your best the very best, sir. >> chris: you are very welcome, chris, thanks for having me on your show. >> chris: up next the head of the nra, wayne lapierre.

♪ it doesn't matter which of our great states folks visit. mississippi, alabama, louisiana or florida, they're gonna love it. shaul, your alabama hospitality is incredible. thanks, karen. love your mississippi outdoors. i vote for your florida beaches, dawn. bill, this louisiana seafood is delicious. we're having such a great year on the gulf, we've decided to put aside our rivalry. now is the perfect time to visit anyone of our states. the beaches and waters couldn't be more beautiful. take a boat ride, go fishing or just lay in the sun. we've got coastline to explore and wildlife to photograph. and there's world class dining with our world famous seafood. so for a great vacation this year, come to the gulf. its all fabulous but i give florida the edge. right after mississippi. you mean alabama. say louisiana or there's no dessert. this invitation is brought to you by bp and all of us who call the gulf home.

well, dad, i spent my childhood living with monks learning the art of dealmaking. you've mastered monkey-style kung fu? no. priceline is different now. you don't even have to bid. master hahn taught you all that? oh, and he says to say (translated from cantonese) "you still owe him five bucks." your accent needs a little work.

>> chris: we're back now with more on gun control. wayne lapierre joined the staff of the national rifle association in 1978. for the last 22 years, he has been the nra's chief spokesman at the center of the debate over guns and mr. lapierre, welcome to "fox news sunday." >> thanks, chris, good to be with you. >> chris: captain kelly specifically brought up the background checks and the fact since 1999, 1.7 million people

have failed background checks and have been denied guns. now, i know you point out, criminals are not going to go through the background checks and there are other ways, and there will always be a black market to get guns but if 1.7 million people have already been denied guns by a partial background check doesn't that make people safer? >> chris, i have all the respect in the world for captain kelly and what happened to his family should never happen to any family, we all want to stop it. but, let me talk about the proposal president obama and people like mayor bloomberg are putting forward. one, let me answer your question: i don't think you can say that those 1.7 million people have been stopped from getting a gun at all. because the government didn't prosecute virtually any of them. they let them walk in, they were denied and let them walk out and who really thinks if they wanted to commit a crime they didn't go on and get a gun. >> chris: i don't know, seems to me if 1.7 million people were denied. i understand the hardened

criminal but the disturbed person, adam lanza, and james holmes in aurora, colorado, those are not hardened criminals. >> the instant check, we offered as an amendment to the brady bill, to put it on dealers, and i have been in this fight for 20 years and we supported it and put it on the books. but, i have finally become convinced after fighting to get the mental records computerized for 20 years, and watching the mental health lobby, usurp the laws and the ama opposes it and i don't think it will happen. the fact is -- >> worked enough 1.7 people were denied. i completely agree with you, i mean, as captain kelly pointed out, jared loughner was able to pass the test and there are holes in it but it doesn't mean, because it is not perfect -- >> the hole in it is the fact we have been fighting 20 years to get the records computerized and

i know what goes on behind the scenes in this town, they won't do it. the mental health lobby will not do it. the hipaa laws won't do it. it will not -- i wishing it would happen. we are all for it but it's not. >> chris: you are for universal background checks? >> universal, but, now that is what president obama is now putting forward and let me talk about that. it is a fraud to call it universal. it is never going to be universal. the criminals will not comply with it. they could care less. you are not going to computerize -- you have seen you will not computerize the mental health records. so here's what will happen. we ought to quit calling it now universal check. the real title ought to be the check on law abiding people all over the country and then let's talk about how it will work. they'll take a failed system. if you in nebraska or selma, neck and are a hunter or a rancher, if i want to sell you a shotgun or something like that, the federal government, we'll have to go find a dealer, walk into a police station, who will

do the check? there will be fees and paperwork and law-abiding people caught up in a bureaucratic nightmare, and, there is going to be abuse in terms of prosecutions. and, it is all going to affect only the law-abiding people them. criminals could care less. >> chris: i want to move on to another subject. what do you make of the picture -- we'll put it on the screen -- the white house released saturday, of president obama skeet shooting at camp david? he says he respects hunting. >> well, the same thing during the campaign, he said to people i will not take away your rifle, shotgun, handgun and, have flyers like this, obama will not take your gun and will protect gun rights, and, now, he's trying to take away all three. i mean -- >> chris: he's not taking away shot guns. >> have you look at the feinstein bill, he is supporting? that is exactly what it does. i mean, i think what they'll do is turn the universal check on the law-abiding into a universal

registry of law-abiding people and law-abiding people don't want that. i mean, my -- >> absolutely do not -- forgive me, sir, you take something that is here, and you say it will go all the way over there. there is no indication, i mean, i can understand you are saying, that is a threat but there is nothing anyone in the administration has said that indicates they are going to have a universal registry. >> and obamacare wasn't a tax until they needed it to be a tax. >> chris: the supreme court decided that. >> you cannot trust these people. my god, dianne feinstein, said, if i could go door-to-door and pick 'em all up, i would do it. can i tell you what i think will work -- >> i'll ask you a couple of questions, the murder today, one of the things that concerns people, it seems every day we talk about a shooting. oftentimes, mass shooting. >> right. >> chris: day after day after day and the frustration is you don't think that the answer is, limiting guns has anything to do with the and i understand there

is some things you think will work and we'll talk about that. the murder yesterday of former navy s.e.a.l. chris kyle, a man who wrote american sniper and credited with the largest number of confirmed kills of any american soldier ever, he and another man gunned down at a texas gun range. >> if you want to stop violence in this country, here's what you do, okay? first, if you want to protect or kids, you put armed security in schools. i'm not talking about arming teachers, i'm talking about police officers and i'm talking about certified professional security people. there is not a parent that sends off their kid to school that wants those kids to be unprotected. just in atlanta this past week armed security stopped a shooting in an atlanta school. stopped it. >> chris: here's the problem, but here's the problem, respectfully, sir: if you arm people at schools, a lot of these people aren't just motivated to kill people in schools. they want to kill people.

and, forgive me, and, if it is -- school is too tough they'll go to a movie theatre, they'll go to a shopping center. they'll go to a gun range and kill chris kyle. >> let's talk about the rest of it. fix the mental healthsystem. every police officer knows people on the streets that should be institutionalized becau. they are walking around in the the street, we need to change the commitment laws and the mental healthsystem and get them -- interdict them and get them into treatment. i'd like to see mental health records computerized and we can't get that done. senator schumer, from 20 years ago, on face the nation, i begged him to help us do it and they still haven't done it. and, the nra has been fighting to get it done. >> chris: you oppose gun control as a form of government tyranny. but in the senate hearings, this week, you offered a different reason for it. let's take a look.

>> right. >> what people all over the country fear today, is being abandoned by their government. if a tornado hits. if a hurricane hits. if a riot occurs, they'll be out there alone. and the only way they will protect themselves, in the cold, in the dark, when they are vulnerable, is weather a firearm. >> chris: do you really think that that is a more serious threat, marauding bands during a hurricane or a tornado is a more serious threat to the average american than the steady drum beat of gun violence and sometimes mass gun violence? >> we want to stop gun violence, that is what we're trying to document here's the threat. there are 2500 violent crimes a week in this country. take a city like chicago and nobody wants to do it but the american public will get it when i say it, chicago, 89 of 90 in the country in terms of enforcing the reasonable federal gun laws nra supports on the

books against felons and drug dealers and gangs with guns, the people doing the killing. we are obsessed with the taliban and we ought to be. what about the gangs? they are ruining neighborhoods all over the country? we need a federal task force, if it takes 500 agents, a thousand agents, go into chicago. i know, eric holder doesn't want to it. a cookie cutter approach and rahm eman nell doesn't want to do it. and he says they cannot be concerned with drug dealers with guns and every gang member on the street of chicago, starting tomorrow morning, let's pick 'em up, we have a federal law to get 'em off the street and put 'em in prison and that would cut crime and we're not doing it. >> chris: well, that is a perfectly legitimate point and, it wouldn't have saved the people in newtown or aurora, colorado or clackmas county, oregon. i want to talk about the question of rights. this heller case is the case, a victory for the nra in which the court affirmed, the second

amendment, means what it says, but here's what justice salia wrote in the majority opinion: the second amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms. of course, the right was not unlimited. not unlimited. scalia talked in his majority decision how what kinds of weapons people can buy and who can buy them and where they can be carried. the right is not unlimited, mr. lapierre. >> we have all kinds of reasonable laws right here, the nra supports and if they enforce them in chicago it would cut crime but the basic right is to protect yourself and the -- semi-automatic technology has been around 100 years and if you limit the american public's access to semi-automatic technology, you limit their ability to survive. if someone is invading your house, i mean, you shouldn't say you should only have five or six shots, you ought to have what you need to protect yourself, a woman should, not what a

politician thinks is reasonable. >> chris: a couple of weeks ago the nra started running an ad that created a great deal of controversy. here's a clip: >> are the president's kids more important than yours? why is he skeptical about putting armed security in our schools when his kids are protected by armed guards at their school? >> chris: mr. lapierre, do you regret putting up that ad? >> the point of ad was this, not -- >> you mentioned the president's kids. >> they are safe and we are thankful for it. the point -- >> they face a threat most children do not face. >> tell that to people in newtown -- >> do you really think the president's children are the same kind of target as every school child in america? that is ridiculous and you know it, sir. >> you know, unfortunately, i think there are parents all over the school that think, all over the country that think their kids are entitled to the same amount of protection when they go to school and they --

>> they should have secret service? >> police officers or certified armed security in those schools to keep people safe. if something happened, the police -- despite all the good intentions, police time is 15-20 minutes and it is too long and will not help those kids. certified armed security in schools, like -- >> that will not protect them in the shopping mall, the movie theatre, on the streets. >> why we need to do everything else i'm talking about. enforce the federal gun laws which we did not do now against gangs with guns and felons with guns and the shadow of where we are sitting now, gangs are in washington, d.c. and you can buy drugs and guns and trafficking in 1-year-old girls... >> chris: i understand there are lots of problems out there and -- but you can't say, that -- first of all the gangs don't commit the mass murders, adam lanza was not a member of a gang and james holmes was not a member of the gang, and one of the points of the ads, you made

it a class argument, rich and elite have bodyguards and security. >> sure. and mayor bloomberg has bodyguards. >> chris: i'll tell you who else has security. you do. >> sometimes. yes. >> chris: and, you have security. today you have security. >> yes, and you talk about hypocrisy in the open, we have had all kinds of threats... >> chris: does that make you an out of touchy elite. >> i don't deny security to anybody who needs it. what i'm saying, it is ridiculous for all the elitings -- elites and titans of industry, who have security and access to semi-automatic technology... >> chris: i don't know anybody elite who sends their kids -- my children went to the same school that the obama children went to, many years ago, and there were no armed security there. >> schools -- >> the idea of an elite class, it is nonsense, sir.

>> capitol hill, right now, they are all protected by armed security, with high-cap magazines while they sit there and try to limit the average citizen, to ten, because they think that that is reasonable in their opinion -- >> one last question, we are running out of time. president obama is making it a big issue and is going to minneapolis tomorrow and captain kelly and gabrielle giffords make it an issue and mayor bloomberg bill launch a big campaign and in fact running an ad during the super bowl in the washington area pointing out the fact in 1999 you supported a universal background check. >> not universal. we supported a check at gun shows. >> chris: okay. all right, not universal. expanded. stand corrected. question: do you think in this environment with this new effort, after newtown you will still be able to convince congress not to pass any new gun controls? >> i think the majority of the american public sees through this and want the current laws enforced and don't want more laws imposed on what is only going to be the law-abiding and see how bill all of this has to

do with keeping our kids safe and how much it has to do with decades or two decades long agenda to drag out the same old gun ban proposals they've tried 20, 30 years and piggy back them onto the tragedy and that this is tragedy. let's make chicago safe and put federal task force in there tomorrow morning. >> chris: thank you. >> thanks, chris. >> chris: thanks for coming in today and it will be a debate, the first big political debate of this year. thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> chris: up next, chuck hagel stumbles his way through the senate confirmation hearing. we'll ask the panel whether his position as defense secretary is in trouble.

♪ >> i support the president's strong position on containment. i have been handed a note that i misspoke and said, i supported the president's position on containment. if i said that, it meant to say that i -- his position on containment, we don't have a position on containment. >> to make sure your correction is clear, we have a position on containment, which is we do not favor containment. >> chris: wow. defense secretary nominee, chuck hagel struggling in his senate confirmation hearing this week. when asked about the u.s. policy on iran's nuclear program. and it is time for our sunday group. republican strategist kevin madden, nina easton of "fortune" magazine, radio talk show host

laura ingraham and former democratic senator evan byah. senator, you served in the senate 12 years, have you ever seen a nominee for a top cabinet post at a worse confirmation hearing. >> he didn't bring his a-game, and everybody would concede this, chuck among them but at the end of the day it will not matter. he'll be confirmed because there is a strong presumption the president gets to choose his own cabinet, unless something disqualifies him from a personal standpoint and, the republicans will vote no, because it an easy no vote and, he gets his cabinet and they get to express their reservations, and, unless there is a filibuster, it would raise the bar but i think he'll be confirmed but it will create heartburn for moderate republicans and in the final analysis i think the ultimate take away is the next time secretary of defense hagel comes before congress or has a press conference he needs to bring the a-game to project the sense of command and confidence people

expect -- >> at the end of the day it doesn't matter, you say. should it matter he didn't seem to know what administration policy was and didn't in some cases know what his own policy was, i mean, he'll be the head of the pentagon. >> well, it raises questions on shows like this but -- >> senator, it wouldn't raise a question in your mind? >> he corrected his answers and he watch as -- i think he misspoke and it wasn't as if he was projecting a real difference on policy with the administration. but, ultimately in matters, chris, it is how he performs as secretary of defense. on gates, leon panetta set the bar pretty high and i think he'll clear the bar and is better prepared the next time. >> chris: laura, at various point, in hagel's testimony he didn't seem to know or thought much about major issues, about the pentagon, about mondaying, at one point called the iranian government legitimate and elected. are you as forgiving as senator bayh. >> the russians and the chinese

were probably watching how this played out, because, i -- as bill kristol -- he was right when he said it wasn't just a second rate performance, it could have been the worst performance that ever took place at a confirmation hearing and that is saying something, when you're the secretary of defense it shouldn't be the fact that you won two purple hearts, were awarded those in battle, pat tip is not questioned. merit should count for something and he'll have to stand up against a, frankly, a american military that will be cut back and will have to stand for that and be able to stand strong on the world stage and the fact that he didn't know where sequester came from. he didn't -- when questioning him he didn't realize it came from the budget agreement. that in and of itself it was disturbing, you expect an aide to him to know the answer to these questions and he seemed completely out of his depth, surprising, knowing that people like mccain were going to be very tough on him. it couldn't have come as a

surprise to him. i thought it was a shocking performance. really, shocking. >> chris: and then, nina, he had to deal with past remarks such as his 2006 comment that the, quote, jewish lobby had intimidated people on capitol hill, to do, quote, dumb things, which led to this exchange, with senator lindsey graham: >> give me an example of where we have been intimidated by the israeli jewish lobby, to do something dumb. regarding the middle east, israel or anywhere sneeelse. >> i can't give you an example. >> chris: which raises the question. why does barack obama want him in the pentagon in the first place? >> here's the thing, i think his stumbling, we're focusing on how he stumbled. the trouble was the peek into his world view and it is the president's world view we are seeing in the second term and that containment exchange was frontal and centre in this. what does -- front and center in

this. containment means we'll allow a nuclear iran and contain it and not prevent it and people are concept cam whether the white house will actually use -- keep the military option on the table to prevent a nuclear iran. y it goes to the question of, does hagel see the u.s. military, a strong u.s. military as a force for good, for leadership in this world? and you get the sense from this and his comments, ala bob woodward and the "washington post" and the exchange he had with president obama, he doesn't, he sees it as a new world order and we are, leading from behind and he didn't exactly say it and it comes when leon panetta points out the threat of the man-pads, the anti-aircraft attack missiles that are coming out of iran, that we need to intercept and, it there are dangers in places like that, al qaeda expanding in north africa and it is a dangerous world and you can't put you a pause button on it. >> chris: let me be blatantly

political with you. what is the smart play for senate republicans? should they filibuster hagel -- and we should point out we can't find any history of a top presidential cabinet appointment ever being filibustered by either party. should they try to filibuster him or say, you want him, you got him? >> i expect, having talked to many folks up on capitol hill, there is not a very big appetite for filibuster. i think that they are more inclined to use this as a vehicle to, again, argue where they disagree with president obama's national security policy and where they disagree with his foreign policy. so i think that is probably the better play. you know, one of the really interesting things here is, to senator bayh's point, a lot of peeks up there believe that the president does get his nominee, but, that there were a number of instances where his qualifications, senator hagel's qualifications, came into play and it was a very big problem that you have somebody who is

not even qualified enough to have really important and distinct opinions, on some very big national security policies. so i think that is something that the folks up on capitol hill, again will use that as a vehicle and that is probably more a political play to litigate the differences they have, with the administration. >> chris: all right. we have to take a break, when we come back, serious movement on immigration reform. but will congress pass anything? ♪

>> chris: still to come, our

power player of the week. >> poetry has a way of saying, this is my experience, and you can share in it with me. >> chris: her job this year is to spread her love of poetry. >> being impassioneded about something that means a lot to me, i'd like to convey to other people. >> chris: stay tuned, we'll be right back. ♪ using cloud computing and mobile technology, verizon innovators have developed a projective display for firefighters. allowing them to see through anything. because the world's biggest challenges deserve even bigger solutions. powerful answers. verizon.

♪ >> president barack obama: yes, they broke the rules. they crossed the border illegally. maybe they overstayed their visas. those are the facts. nobody disputes them. but, these 11 million men and women are now here. >> if this endeavor becomes a bidding war to see who can come up with the easiest, quickest and fastest pathway to green card as possible, this will not

go well, folks. >> chris: the president and marco rubio leading the discussion on what to do with immigration reform, we're back with the panel. i bipartisan group of 8 senators, four republicans and four democrats, on the screen, agreed to a statement of principle, not legislation but principle on immigration, 11 million illegals would get legal status but the path to citizenship is linked to tougher enforcement at the border and the workplace. reasonable compromise? >> i don't think so. i think what you are seeing here is, the republicans are kind of cautiously optimistic, and, because marco rubio is up there and who doesn't love him if you are a conservative and the problem is we have seen the movie and know how it ends. with enforcement an promises of enforcement, when it is linked together and in one bill, enforcement usually never happens and what we know from the administration and the democrats when states try to enforce what they can of

immigration law, they are thwarted and arizona and, amnesty, by executive fiat... they are not thrilled with spending money on en form and making it difficult and david vitter this week on my radio show called marco rubio and, you are nuts if you think you can do it in a bill. you have to establish border security first and then i think the american people who are compassionate and giving, then deem with the people, probably more, closer to 18 million, not 11 million, by the way, that is the number everyone throws around and deal with though people who are here illegally. >> chris: senator bayh, i'm not saying whether she's right or wrong in terms of the policy prescription, that is completely unacceptable to the hispanic community and to president obama. >> that's true, chris. but there are areas where the consensus overlaps here. the democrats want to do it from a policy perspective and also want to placate part of our base that is very important and the republicans need to do this for reasons of self-preservation.

they can't have a conversation with the single most rapidly growing part of the american electorate. the hispanic community, unless they address the issue. and the business community leaves strongly that resolve on this issue is important to growing the economy. i think there is some reason to believe a consensus can, formed. it may be a narrow one and i think one of the main issues, what do the administration and the advocates want, take martin luther king's approach through civil rights reform, step-by-step or make compromises to get something done with the republicans or insist on everything and say, legislation, we will have an issue in the midterm election. that is one of the big issues. >> chris: you don't think the president and democrats would agree to decide the idea a lot of conservatives suggest of, enforcement and border security first? >> well, that is going to depend on the semantics and the structure, chris. enforcement, sure. i don't think many democrats -- not all democrats -- >> you do that before you move at all on the 11 million -- >> those are details, the question is, what is this timing

and metrics used and yes, enforcement but, not saying there is no practical hope of having a permanent status. >> kevin, you saw the group, bipartisan, gang of 8 we put up there, that is only four republican senators, let alone the full republican caucus in the senate, let alone the house republican majorities. what they're chances that republicans would go for something close to what the gang of 8 came up with, this -- because, one of the key things we should point out is under this bill you would get, not a path to citizenship but before enforcement, you get provisional status which means immediately, the 11, whatever, million, now, i'm concerned about that... we'll say 11 million, for the sake of the argument, immediately have legal status in this country? >> look, i think you are poised now for a better chance at success on this issue. than any time we have had previously. one of the things that happened is, you do have a sea change among many republicans who

believe there is an important political ramification here and, put that aside we will not win hispanic voters with one immigration bill. what is different about it this time around when we have had the debate internally as a party in the past, folks like marco rubio accept the reservation of people like senator vitter and people have strong, substantive concerns about how we go about enforcement and he's not willing to demonize those critics or attack them and instead is looking for them for input and to be part of the solution. that is what happens with -- i don't mean it critically against john mccain, i mean it clinically, every time someone disagreed with senator mccain he'd attack them and say come up with your own bill and this time there is a greater degree by folks like marco rubio who want to engage critics as he has done with conservative talk show hosts and engaged people who have been critical and that is a key element to whether or not there is -- this is successful or -- >> to answer my question, do you

think, particularly the house republican majority, should go along with something like this? >> there are principles in there folks in the house majority agree with and they realize it is part of a larger economic argument and only a step in dealing with the political problems we have. >> chris: nina, this is a win-win for the president? if he gets comprehensive immigration reform, it is' huge legislative accomplishment and adds to his legacy and if he doesn't, republicans are just digging themselves into a deeper hole with hispanics? >> like everything seems to be a win-win with this president, these days, particularly on spending issues. i think it is -- we can't lose sight of the fact it is potentially a win for republicans. you know, this legislation, outline of the legislation is remarkably similar to 2007. when, by the way, that sank john mccain's first attempt at the primary. but, the difference now is a

lost election, the fact that republicans got 27% of the hispanic vote when they should be getting 40%. and you have a very attractive, popular conservative leading the charge and i think there will be conservatives who are not on the boat but having marco rubio out there and out front on this is key and will be good for the republican party. >> it is risky for rubio. we have to be clear on that. while he's extremely popular, and again, we all like him, there is a divide here and the -- in the republican party. we have 23 million americans either unemployed or under employed and the idea that this will be' boon to the economy, tell that to the middle class worker in ohio who sees his pag wages stagnated and people unemployed for long term periods of time. it is a tough deal for them. >> the difficulty for the republican party, chris, you have a disconnect between primary politics and general election politics and marco r b

rubio understands is it does not do any good if you made yourself up electable in the fail. >> chris: do you think they'll go along with something along these lines? >> i don't. unless there is real enforcement and verifiable, not the appointment of another commission, which i think is a joke, unless it is real enforcement, i think it's not going to work and i don't think it will go through, is my view. >> chris: thank you, panel, see you next week. don't forget to check out panel plus where our group picks up with the discussion on our web site, foxnewssunday.com and we'll be sure to post the video before noon the following day, and be sure to follow us on twitter. up next our power player of the week.

>> chris: it is common practice in washington tor people to use words to score a point, to sting. but we found a woman who uses words to reach out, and to heal. and she is our power player of the week.

>> to comfort us when we have losses. to celebrate with us our joys and triumphs. but also to help us see things differently than we do in our every day lives. >> chris: she is talking about poetry. and the role she says it continues to play. not as accessible as prose. >> to keep a record, sometimes our every day speech has a way of saying, this is me and that is you and we are different, and i think poetry has a way of saying, this is my experience, and you can share in it with me. >> truth be told, i do not want to forget anything of my former life... >> chris: she's the nation's 19th poet laureate. working out of the library of congress, her job this year is to spread her love of poetry. >> actually, i get inspired, it helps me to write poems to be

here. >> chris: and describes her role as a cheerleader. >> in a former life, was a cheerleader and seemed a natural way to think about being excited about something, being passionate about something that means a lot to me. that i would like to convey to other people. >> chris: her father is white, the mother, black. they had to leave mississippi in the '60s, to get married. >> chris: how do you think it affected you, the idea that your parents' marriage was a crime? >> well, i think that it created in me a sense of psychological exile. >> chris: and when she was 19 her mother was murdered by her former stepfather. >> that is the moment where i really tried in the language of poetry to make sense of that loss. here, the dead stand up in stone, white marble on confederate avenue. i stand on ground once hallowed by a web... >> chris: one of the themes of her work is memory, what is left

out of the nation's public record. she won a pulitzer prize in '07 for native guard, about a forgotten black union regiment that fought in the civil war. >> we know it is our duty now to take white men as prisoners, rebel soldiers, would-be masters... >> chris: she wrote the poem in the library's reading room in seat 170. sometimes to rest her eyes she'd look up at a pillar marked "poetry". >> and now when i do it i cannot see the word, "poetry" so clearly but i have faith that it is there. >> chris: so she'll continue to cheer-lead. for an art form that forces you to slow down and contemplate. in a world that doesn't always value that. >> trying to find a way to say what seems so necessary to be said, but so difficult also, to someone that i can speak very intimately to. across time and space. on the page. that is